( 1 ) THIS writ petition challenges that part of the direction of the judgment dated 23rd October, 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions judge which upon concluding thai a fraud was played upon the original plaintiff/respondent No. 2 Bank in a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 2 Bank against one Mr. Deepak Sharma, then proceeded to hold that the Bank officer had ignored the rules and norms of the Bank in failing to verify the nature of the security offered by the defendant. This judgment therefore held that the then Manager of the bank had acted in collusion with the defendant by throwing all rules and norms in the dustbin and directed the recovery of the said decretal amount from the bank official as the amount could not be recovered from the defendant. The relevant para 5 of the judgment by which the petitioner is aggrieved reads as under: "5. However before I part with this case I am constrained to observe that case shows a total fraud played upon the bank by the then Manager of the bank in collusion with the defendant and one Baldev Sachdeva who introduced the defendant to the plaintiff bank at the time of account opening. The account was opened on 3rd August, 1994 and on the same day a cheque of foreign bank was deposited and without clearance of the cheque this person was given Rs. 2 lakhs from the bank against this cheque on the same day without any surety or guarantor or verification. In the normal course of business while giving any overdraft or loan to a common man, the bank obtains sufficient security which is more than the amount of the loan; but in this case the document show that without any security, just on the request of the defendant a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was given by the bank. Even the business of the defendant as that of spare parts has been entered in the pen of the bank officer in account opening form. The defendant is resident of Krishna Nagar a trans Yamuna colony and he opened the account in Hauz Khas Branch of the bank, far off from his own residence. Sole purpose of opening this saving bank account in hauz Khas branch of the plaintiff bank was to obtain a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the bank. Nobody opens saving bank account about 25 km. away from his residence. Bank should have smelled the rat immediately. One baldev Raj had introduced him at the time of account opening but I do not find if the bank had taken any steps against Baldev Sachdeva knew the defendant. The bank had also not verified the details of the defendants ailing brother. All rules and norms were thrown in dustbin by the manager. It is clearcut case where the bank officer had cheated the bank in collusion with the defendant. I consider that this amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and interest should be recovered from the bank officials as it cannot be recovered from the defendant. Copy of the judgment be sent to the chairman of the bank. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner challenged the aforesaid finding of recovery of the aforesaid decretal amount from the Bank Manager i. e. the petitioner. The bank is now seeking to recover the said amount pursuant to the above judgment from the petitioner as the account was opened when the petitioner was the manager at Hauz Khas Branch. Since the matter related to the maintainability of the writ petition and the scope and ambit of the writ of ccrtiorari, Mr. Subramanium, Sr. Advocate was appointed as ainicus curiae.

( 3 ) MR. Subramanium, the learned ainicus curiac has delineated the scope of ccrtiorari to be a writ issued by a Superior Court to an inferior Court or Tribunal commanding the latter to send up the record of a particular case. He further referred to the definition of certiorari by H. W. R. Wade and C. F. Foresyth as follows: "certiorari is used to bring upto into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in order that it may be investigated. If the decision does not pass the test, it is quashed, that is to say, it is declared completely invalid, so